Advertising through the streaming video medium . . . is it profitable?

What is particularly interesting to me lately is the relationship between streaming video and ads online. I never really thought about this until recently. Cable TV shows have historically always been shown on cable TV itself, however, in the past year or so, streaming TV shows has become a very popular medium. Personally, I know a couple people who do not have cable and merely watch their favorite cable TV shows online by streaming through websites. Obviously, the shows cannot be streamed online for free without any attachments, such as ads. Furthermore, streaming video of popular TV shows, usually implements a 30 second advertisement periodically throughout the duration of the show.

            An article on ADWEEK by Noreen O’Leary, noted how Hulu has been increasingly popular in demand of streaming video. Actually, it is rated as the second most popular streaming video site behind YouTube. However, the article did state that profitability of advertising through online video streaming was unknown. This article is slightly dated to May 25^th, 2009. . . so I bet there is a better understanding of how streaming video matches up to cable TV profitability, in direct relation to advertising. This is evident, because in the article itself, the author noted how "next fall" would determine the profitability of online video streaming for advertisement. Clearly, almost all major television shows are able to be streamed online for free, so this must be an indicator that advertising online through video streaming is helping with the profitability of these products advertised.

Celebrities in the media affecting advertising?

Something I was thinking about today is brand images based on celebrities. There are so many brands that sponsor professional athletes, retired athletes, movie starts, and other celebrities. However, I don't think that can always be a good idea, for the brand alone, and the targeting market. For example, my first thought about this idea came about when Tiger Woods was all over the news when his scandal was covered on TV. He was sponsored by so many brands, Nike, Gatorade, Gillette, and the list continues. I believe since then, Nike is the only company that has continued his sponsorship.

Furthermore, I would add to say companies can do a great job of "pushing endorsements" based on celebrities verification of a product or service. A good example, I think, is Derek Jeter. He is a professional baseball player for the New York Yankees and argumentatively one of the most respected professional athletes in the world. He is sponsored by Gatorade, and is shown on almost all of their commercials. He is respected world wide, and I think some people could change their thoughts on drinking Gatorade over Powerade or any other sports drink just because of him. According to an add in Advertising Age, even the "C listers" can be persuasive with pushing endorsement. Their example was the reality show star Snookie from the Jersey Shore on MTV. Is she better at "pushing endorsements" then say Derek Jeter, I don't think so . . . I guess that's up to you to decide as well, everyone is gullible in their own ways.

Social networking re-defining the like button for advertisers

At this point I am going to explore the affects of media on advertising and marketing. All-in-all, advertising is still the same; companies have a product to sell and they are transmitting a message to consumers about their product. It started with one-on-on interpersonal communication, then to TV and print ads, and up until recently, with more digital advertising through the internet. More importantly, social networking is the new “thing” in advertising. Some professionals, believe social networking, such as Facebook, is creating their own “brand loyalty” through Facebook “likes.”

            One of the latest stories on Advertising Age: How Your Likes Are Turning Facebook Into the 'Loyalty Card of the Internet, says technology, like TheFind, is enabling consumers to shop through their results from “liking” certain brands or products. This seems to be the newest buzz in new media relating to technology. There is so much on social media, and companies are flocking to reach out to customers via Twitter and Facebook . . . maybe this will work.

Relating the beginning of advertising to today; Phiten & Power Balance

            My purpose for writing today relates the similarities between the first advertising (print) compared to advertising today. I will argue that old print advertising for medicines, which claimed to cure people’s health problems, is very similar to athletic accessories advertising today. At the start of advertising, companies would advertise certain medicines, which could have been merely a water based placebo. Today, companies such as Power Balance and Phiten are claiming their wrist bands and necklaces will give people more energy, increase flexibility, and strength.

            Phiten is a company  that started to be very popular in professional baseball a couple years ago. Since major leaguers started wearing these necklaces and were seen on TV and in the media, then other players and younger kids started purchasing these necklaces, thinking that they would perform better on the baseball field. There is no proof that these work and it seems hard to believe that metals in a necklace can change a person’s health, enabling them to perform better athletically. Also, Power Balance is an new company that started last year. It became popular in the NBA after Shaq started wearing Power Balance bands in NBA games and he was also the spokesperson during commercials and other advertising videos. More NBA players started to wear these bands, and now it has become the new “fad.” So many kids just have to have these accessories because they think they will perform better. However, there is a lot of advertising for products, such as Phiten and Power Balance, that offer no proof that these products really work. This is almost exactly the same as the first print advertising.

            False advertising . . . I think so . . . what do you think?

Branding in Advertising

This week, when I read an article from Advertising & Society Review titled “What is Advertising?” I really started to think about company’s “branding” practices today. I am now intrigued to explore this idea of branding, look at how Pepsi has branded itself, and also look at an article from Advertising Age.

            It used to be that long ago there were no brands, coffee was just coffee and water was just water. Now, everything is branded and it all started with packaging products to be purchased instead of consumers bringing their own packaging for products to purchase. Currently, everything seems to be branded and it seems that every brand is making their own “personality” per say. Each brand wants consumer to automatically have a certain feeling obtained for their product and to have a certain voice in the market they are in. Each brand, nowadays, has settled their own way into the culture of consumerism today.

            After President Obama was elected president of the United States, Pepsi was fast to change the look of their Pepsi logo. They changed their logo to resemble the look of Obama’s campaign logo. This seemed to be a move to try and show the public that they continue to change in the eyes of the public to cater towards others. I think this was a move to make Pepsi seem more patriotic. Also, I believe this was a move to try and show that Pepsi is a brand targeted towards youth as well. This past election had the most amount of votes casted by a younger age group (18-21) than any election in the history of the United States. This was a risky move, but I think they were pretty successful in adapting to new cultural trends of today.

            I read an article in Advertising Age called, Men Can't Adapt, but Brands can - -Here's How to Target Guys .This article talked about the current changes in the economy affecting men and their own role in society (AKA manhood). I don’t think this article was absolutely correct with Rose Cameron’s example, however, I can look beyond her examples to see ones that fit. She gave examples of Old Spice and their newer commercials targeting towards men to smell more “manly.” She also looks at Dos Equis and their attempt to advertise towards aging men, in order to still feel cool and in the times. This whole article was to capture the idea that brands have to change their idea and basically their motto, in order to cater to the needs of increasingly changing consumers and changing consumer culture.

the web is alive for advertisers & BP's unethical advertising

The first week of class in my C315- Advertising and Consumer Culture course at Indiana University, we learned many of the basics of advertising. There was a significant amount of detail in discussing the cycle of advertising, marketing, and research methods. Also, we analyzed two different articles, which had a central idea that “the web is dead.” First, I will contrast what we learned in class (“the web is dead”) from an article I found in today’s Advertising Age website called What Big Brands are Spending on Google. Second, I will describe the contents of the article, and more importantly ask about the ethics involved in one particular company’s advertising.

            I read two specific articles last week which stated the web is dead for advertisers and “apps” are what is becoming the hottest advertising technique today. However, the ad in Advertising Age suggests the opposite. The article, written by Michael Learmonth, said large companies, such as AT&T, Ebay, BP and others are spending millions of dollars in advertising through Google each month. Also, the article said Google is actually becoming even more popular each day for advertising and will only become more popular. The question is who is right here?

            I wanted to also hit on what Learmonth said about BP’s advertising in the month of June. In the month of June alone, BP spent $3.6 million for advertising about the oil spill. Even more astonishing, BP spent over $100 million in total to advertise about the clean-up of the gulf oil spill. Personally, I don’t see how BP was spending millions of dollars to advertise their intentions to save face, rather than spend that money trying to actually fix the oil leak. It is evident BP wanted to evoke a feeling of loyalty for the gulf environment and people towards the public so the public opinion of BP wouldn’t crash. When it comes to ethical business practices, however, I don’t think BP made a ethical decision to spend that amount of money when they could have utilized their resources to fix the problem at hand.